policy. At the present time these are two issues which we are confronted with and needs good knowledge and ability to move forward on both issues.

Bernie's not up to being President obviously.

But I must agree, Bernie is better than Calvin Coolidge.

on not dealing with them, also known as dealing with them separately.

there will be foreign policy questions for sure.

Bush & Hillary walked Arm in Arm into the Iraq War.
She had his back.

Bush needed a few heavy weight Democrats to endorse the IWR to prevent trials for War Crimes or impeachment.
NOW, the disaster in the Middle East. belongs to Republicans AND Democrats.

One saving grace for Bush...he had absolutely NOTHING to do with the destruction of Libya, and putting the terrorists in charge.

He has a simple message that's easy to understand, and he delivers it with passion. The fact that O'Malley has no ideological space shows how effective Bernie has been. O'M has actually accomplished many of the types of things Bernie is talking about, and no one gives a damn.

It's a good strategy if your goal is to "influence the debate," but it won't win the Primary.

Hmmm.

Where have we heard that before?

If reigning-in Wall St. greed & corruption is such a "losing" issue, why is Hillary falling all
over herself now to broadcast how "tough" she will be on Wall St. ??

...although I doubt you'll get any responses from Hillary's Keyboard Warriors Brigade.

is that a couple of weeks in they were forced to focus on multiple areas, not just the one they were on. That really threw them for a loop.

Is Jeff Bezos A Horrible Boss And Is That Good?

According to Mr. Stone, Mr. Bezos thrives on confrontation and puts employees through “fire drills” when addressing issues raised by customers in which he has taken a personal interest. All it takes is a question mark in the subject line of an e-mail forwarded by Mr. Bezos for all heck to break loose.

Mr. Stone writes that Mr. Bezos is not dissimilar to other technology executives, including Mr. Jobs, Bill Gates, Steve Ballmer and Andy Grove, when it comes to making work difficult for employees. Mr. Bezos, Amazon employees say, sometimes explodes into what they call “nutters.”


Most of his outbursts are a direct result of his total commitment to improving customer service and, in turn, his company’s performance. That doesn’t make them any less blistering. Here are a few of Mr. Bezos’ greatest hits, according to the book:

“Are you lazy or just incompetent?”

“We need to apply some human intelligence to this problem.”


http://www.forbes.com/sites/retailwire/2013/10/22/is-jeff-bezos-a-horrible-boss-and-is-that-good/

He seems to hate workers and Bernie fights for the working class.............

Although it is probably too late for him to salvage a victory. I honestly don't think he wants to win. I think he just wants to get his issues out there, and his supporters (particularly the ones donating) are being used as his pawns.

there?

Didn't think that one through, did you?

Snark, rudeness and being nasty is what they tend to excel at.

...they must be ignorant chumps, who don't understand their own interests, and are being used by a Machiavellian Bernie Sanders to (gasp!) "get his issues out there". The horror!

Whereas Hillary's supporters do understand their own interests: among other things, they don't have to donate so much, because she has taken care of the $$$ issue by bundling donors from Big Money sources. That just goes to show how truly supportive and helpful she is to The Little People.

Yeah, that's the ticket.

She favors neoconservative/neoliberalism intervention, which has done nothing but make things worse. ISIS is as a result of her Iraqi war vote. She's not alone, of course, but following neoconservatives into that country destabilized the region and brought us a Hydra much worse than Saddam Hussein, who was of no threat to anyone outside of his country.

Clinton is not STRONG on foreign policy, but she is WRONG.

And, I think if she gets the nomination, the media will be happy to oblige in pointing out her incredible missteps as SoS.

"Secretary of State Hillary Clinton leaves the post as an overwhelmingly popular figure on the national political stage.

An eye-popping 69% of Americans approve of the job she has done as the country’s top diplomat, according to the latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, with a scant 25% disapproving of her performance."

Whatever you say.

They just haven't worked themselves out into the mainstream beyond, "Benghazi," yet, but they will. They will.

Both dems and rethugs praised her, and the American people agreed. Any attempts to rewrite history will fail.

Do you mean people comfortable with continual military action?

No, I'm sorry I don't think most people agree with the eternal war on terror.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/01/17/wsjnbc-poll-hillary-clinton-exits-with-69-approval-rating/

"Secretary of State Hillary Clinton leaves the post as an overwhelmingly popular figure on the national political stage.

An eye-popping 69% of Americans approve of the job she has done as the country’s top diplomat, according to the latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, with a scant 25% disapproving of her performance."

Facts are a lovely thing.

You responded specifically about a foreign policy concern.

My question stands. Do you think that Americans really favor increased engagement on the stupid "War on Terror"?


Good luck giving a direct answer.

Not working so far, is it?

Here is why.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/11/6/1445490/-Hillary-Clinton-did-not-vote-for-war-Listen-to-her-own-words-before-the-vote

She was so savvy and smart that she somehow didn't think the Bushies would go to war in Iraq?

Or...

She actually believed that Iraq was involved and that things would work out with the invasion?

Or...

She didn't want to be seen as being 'anti-war'?

Or....

Was it all political calculus?




Your article is also absurd. They make a big deal about some of the subsections of the bill when the heading of that section said "Authorization for use of united states armed forces."

Also, the author quickly closed comments on the bloody thing.

Probably would have helped if the extremists hadn't pretended she was itching to go to war when that is demonstrably false. But they over reached like extremists are prone to do. 69% approval rating as SOS ought to tell you that.

The millennials were 8 years old at the time. It's meaningless to them. So no help there.

Who is going to attack her on it in the GE? Republicans? LOL. No.

Sorry, you can rail about it from here to kingdom come. It's not working and it's not going to work.

And she voted for it for one of the above reasons.
Political expediency
Ignorance of the situqtion
Foolhardy belief in the Bushies
Or political image.


None of these reasons are acceptable.

did not exhaust all means before invading which is what the IWR called him to do. Don't make it an easy escape responsibility for his actions.

Seperation of powers and all that. The president needs congressional authorization to go to war (with a few annoying exceptions). Basic high school civics.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/11/6/1445490/-Hillary-Clinton-did-not-vote-for-war-Listen-to-her-own-words-before-the-vote

Here is a nice summary, since you clearly never listened to what she actually said:

1) We are here to vote to give the president authority to use military force should diplomatic methods fail.
2) Dissent on this measure is good, and shows our strength as a democracy. I respect all of the opinions opposing the resolution. They may be correct.
3) It is indisputable that Saddam is a monster. Our monster, supported in the 80's by the US (read: Reagan and Bush I administrations).
4) Bush I did not protect the Shia and Kurds after the war initially (twist the knife a little more).
5) The UN imposed many restrictions on Saddam, including weapons inspections and no fly zones to keep him from being a jerk. The inspectors found ridiculous quantities of WMD and programs to make more and worse weapons.
6) Saddam tried to get sanctions lifted by disallowing inspections in 1998. US policy became regime change, not just containment. The inspectors withdrew (note: they were asked to by the US), and President Clinton bombed all suspected sites (note: along with a lot of air defense systems and centers of Baathist authority)
7) In the 4 years since the last inspections, intelligence indicates Saddam has rebuilt. (She accepts Bush's intelligence reports.)
8) Saddam had nothing to do with Sept 11.
9) If Saddam gets WMD again, it will suck for everyone.
10) Unilateral invasion and regime change is not the answer. It would kill our credibility, and leave Iraq a wreck. Hey, remember how awesome Bill was on this kind of policy to remove Milosovic?
11) It would be great to depend on UN alone, but the Security Council is full of jerks. When it cannot get the job done, coalitions can be built without it for just causes.
12) I believe we can get the UN Security Council to remove the 1998 UN restrictions on inspectors and institute an unfettered inspection regime. They will not give Bush Carte Blanche to invade. This has a chance to build up the reputation and effectiveness of the UN.
13) If Saddam complies, it will result in the removal of all WMD without war. Regime change will have to come later.
14) If Saddam refuses, we will be able to build a real coalition to get the job done and rebuild Iraq.
15) If the Security Council blocks it, we will have the moral authority to build a coalition (like we did in Bosnia).
16) Going to war is bad. If Hussein does have weapons, he will have every reason to use them. Better to have allies who can help us rebuild Iraq, and discourage him from using WMD. We cannot do this unilaterally.
17) Bush has toned down the war rhetoric. His recent speech makes clear he wants to go through the UN. This resolution is not perfect, but I think it empowers him to do the right thing to disarm Iraq without war. I take him at his word he will work through the UN.
18)I believe the measure must pass with real bi-partisan support to convince the Security Council to create the new resolution.
19) This vote is hard, and it should be. But I respect the office of the President which I was next to for 8 years. I want Hussein to give into inspections. And I want the military to know that if they do have to invade, all of America is united behind them.
20) This is not a vote for pre-emption, unilateralism, or any other dumb thing the Republicans have advocated.
21) Saddam has been playing a long game with WMD. It needs to end.
22) War can be avoided. I am voting to call on Bush to go to the UN.
23) As a senator from New York which just lost so many to terrorism, my constituents are telling me to take the threat seriously.
24) This is not a vote to go to war. This is a vote telling the president that war is the last resort if diplomacy fails. The goal is only disarmament.

She could not be more clear in her goals or intention. Resolve this without war. Use the UN.

And Bush had a cabinet and administration of policy people that were dedicated to war in Iraq BEFORE 9-11.

Somehow a smart, savvy politician didn't know that?

The bill section was Authorization for use of Military Force. Everything else is just so much political positioning. There were plenty of Democrats that were willing to take a principled stand against this.

Seriously, are you able to make an argument?

He's not running. She is.

The fact is that she's a neoliberal interventionist, which is the same damn thing as a neocon. Even Robert Kagan thinks so.

He can take responsibility for the gun deaths.

strengths, seemingly.

What Bernie is saying on the campaign trail is essentially the same thing he has been saying for at least the 10 years he's been on the Thom Hartmann show, and probably a lot longer seeing some videos of him in 1992.

I suggest you look at my post #20....Your evaluation is unfair. He has spoken often on foreign policy issues and his website has detailed foreign policy positions.

http://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-foreign-policy-and-national-security/bernie-sanders-on-foreign-policy/

nor are they For Sale.

I've been listening to Brunch with Bernie since it started, and he has proved to be amazingly adaptable.

For instance:
He tried to get a Public Option into the ACA, but couldn't get enough Democratic support...
SO...he adapted..and got one for Vermont or any other state that wished to try.

That is just ONE instance of adaptability...but a very BIG one.
Anyway, all I need is one documented incident to destroy your thesis that Bernie is not adaptable.

Have a nice day!

should have changed?

Is the optics you choose to look through and the paper tiger of an attack piece you attempt to use to make your point. His campaign is not one-dimensional and it is not the only thing he speaks about. The problem that people like you, as well as this article writer, have an agenda and that agenda is many things but fair and objective it is not.
Try listening more and talking less.

Bernie Sanders’s refreshingly sane foreign policy
http://www.salon.com/2015/11/25/bernie_sanderss_refreshingly_sane_foreign_policy/


Sanders determined to be heard in foreign policy
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/bernie-sanders-determined-heard-foreign-policy/story?id=35295352

Bernie Sanders immigration plan
http://www.thenation.com/article/bernie-sanders-spells-out-his-immigration-plan/

On ISIS
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/8626570

Bernie Sanders is right about Saudi Arabia and Yemen and ISIS
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/nov/24/bernie-s/bernie-sanders-right-saudi-arabia-more-focused-con/

Bernie Sanders on war and peace
https://berniesanders.com/issues/war-and-peace/

Bernie Sanders' foreign policy positions
http://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-foreign-policy-and-national-security/bernie-sanders-on-foreign-policy/

Someone posted a few last week.

"Being one-dimensional is very much not ok at the presidential level. The challenges the country faces -- both domestically and internationally -- are legion, and an ability to rapidly shift from one area of focus to another, no matter where your true passions lie, is essential."

get his message out. He has no real chance to win the primary, so it isn't really hurting him.

Sound familiar?

...

Wealth inequality, racial inequality, Wall Street reform, equal rights for women, minorities, and LGBT, infrastructure revitalization, job creation, universal healthcare, green energy, prison reform, drug reform.......I could go on. All this including a measured approach to foreign policy.
So, one-dimensional my ass.
This is another bullshit M$M meme being peddled to direct attention away from a host issues our country faces that the oligarchs that run the show would rather not talk about..
John Wagner can take his establishment opinion and cram it up his cram hole.

After all, it would mean your candidate wins easily. Posting it would be an attempt to change the course of the Sanders campaign.

The first debate question was, "You will each have one minute for an opening statement to share your thoughts about the attacks in Paris, and lay out your vision for America." That's what Bernie Sanders did.

But Chris Cillizza writes, "The first question was, predictably, about the attacks and what they meant for both the ongoing fight against ISIS and the broader battle against terrorism."

Cillizza omits the "lay out your vision for America" half-of-the-question to try to make it seem strange that Sanders used his minute to talk about terrorism and then his vision for America.

Cillizza is correct in that Sanders is one-demenisional which hampers his ability to expand his base. So far Sanders has made no or only small inroads with African American voters and Latino voters and I do not see that changing

Those people who sip cocktails with each other and politicians and other elites and pat each other on the back...And quietly laugh at the boobs in the outer darkness beyond the beltway....Yeah. They get it all right.

you want to talk about.

Meh.

I'd keep quiet and just let him keep right on doing it.